IPRs, Innovation And Sustainable Development Goals - A Post-Covid Socio-Legal Analysis

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Environmental Law

Published: 2026-08-23T20:23:56.362222+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:10:59.308+00:00

IPRS, INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

GOALS: A POST-COVID SOCIO-LEGAL ANALYSIS

Anubhuti Yadav, B.B.A. LL.B. (H), Department of Law, School of Legal Studies, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted all global systems while showing how systems were weak along with creating space for new transformative approaches. The global pandemic highlighted significant weaknesses in public health programs alongside economic stability and educational dissemination platforms as well as environmental administration across all world nations. Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) together with innovation became essential resources used to create technological gains alongside fostering socio-economic strength alongside sustainable recovery during the global crisis. Widespread recognition exists regarding how IPRs create innovation incentives specifically for pharmaceuticals and digital products. The dispute between exclusive technological rights and the necessity of equal technology access grew intensive during the pandemic.

Re-evaluating the socio-legal effects of the IPR system assumes critical importance when countries work to adapt their development priorities to United Nations SDGs. This paper delves into the intersection of IPRs, innovation, and SDGs in a post-COVID world and further reviews international and Indian IPR regulations to check their consistency against sustainable development core objectives. IPRs function as both regulators and fuel for innovation while creating a pathway toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. A research partnership of legal studies with socio-economic evaluation examines current IPR systems to evaluate their support or limitations for fair development tools. The study’s India-specific research delves into national guidelines and examines neighbourhood knowledge practices while analysing biodiversity defence methods and local development techniques.

The paper evaluates the worldwide conversations regarding TRIPS flexibilities together with compulsory licensing and open-access models since the emergence of COVID-19 vaccine patent waiver discussions. The study demonstrates that establishing an IPR system requires a balance between protecting innovation while maintaining access for all. Keywords: Technological advancement, Development tools, Innovation, COVID-19, Intellectual Property Rights, Sustainable Development Goals.

INTRODUCTION

The rapid transformation of global governance has elevated the central importance of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) connection to innovation pairings with sustainable development. Societies of the 21st century especially after the COVID crisis have transformed their mind-set regarding innovation because it now stands as the keystone of both inclusive developments together with resilience. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recognizes IPRs as rights which stem from intellectual industrial scientific literary and artistic activities. IPRs consist of various rights such as patents alongside trademarks and copyrights and geographical indications alongside trade secrets. IPR protection and enforcement systems create incentives for creative thought and develop conditions which boost technological innovation and progress.

Such regulatory systems generate important social issues which become fiercely debated during universal crises such as the on-going COVID-19 pandemic because they affect public access and economic equality. As global objectives for development the United Nations adopted the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 to achieve poverty elimination and planetary protection while securing peace and prosperity throughout 2030. The framework consists of 17 goals together with 169 targets which concentrate on resolving diverse pressing social, economic and environmental concerns. A major change in policies together with increased financial commitments and improved

innovations will be essential for reaching these targets. The transformative process demands IPRs to fulfil their vital role even though their traditional analysis happens through economic and legal frameworks. The COVID-19 crisis revealed that global society needs to balance IP protection measures with vital public health requirements as well as education needs and environmental sustainability objectives. The developing country status of India alongside its rising innovation system provides an exclusive perspective to study these connections. The socio-legal context within India provides a deep understanding of traditional knowledge and biodiversity protection while supporting grassroots innovation because it contains a rich collection of these elements.

The Indian Patent Act of 1970 received its current form after amendments in 2005 for TRIPS Agreement implementation while integrating various public interest measures through compulsory licensing and patent exclusion clauses. India took measures to implement these provisions as a way to find balance between innovation credits and developmental needs. The worldwide

discussion about TRIPS flexibilities together with open-access principles and global IPR framework reform emerged vigorously because of COVID-19 vaccine and treatment accessibility inequalities. The research evaluates possibilities for restructuring IPR frameworks including international and Indian elements to back the SDGs throughout an era that follows the pandemic and further examines the innovative and intellectual property role in sustainable development through multidimensional analysis of international conventions and national legislations and judicial decisions and policy frameworks. LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF IPRs: INTERNATIONAL AND INDIAN PERSPECTIVE The intellectual property rights (IPRs) legal framework exists in multiple national and international spheres to regulate innovation and access combined with the protection of creativity.

Under World Trade Organization (WTO) circumstances the Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) serves as the leading international legal instrument adopted in 1994. 1 TRIPS establish core requirements for intellectual property varieties such as patents alongside trademarks and copyrights which forces members to create domestic legislation that meets its requirements. TRIPS deliver legal clarity through its detailed harmonized structure because it allows prescription of IP cross-border protection. The international intellectual property standards of TRIPS have received criticism because they do not consider differences in development capabilities across member nations.

Issues relating to public health and technology access become extremely problematic for the TRIPS Agreement because of development disparities between member states which were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2 Through Articles 7 and 8 of the TRIPS Agreement member states benefit from two key flexibilities which establish innovative technology promotion through IP rights while empowering nations to enact measures for protecting public health and ensuring adequate nutrition. The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (2001) specifies that TRIPS safeguards public health measures for members through its provisions. The

1 Carlos M. Correa, Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights: A Commentary on the TRIPS

Agreement 103 (Oxford University Press, 2nd edn., 2020)

2 Peter K. Yu, “The Objectives and Principles of the TRIPS Agreement” 46 Houston Law Review 979-1015

(2009).

pandemic exposed this element as important because India and South Africa advocated temporarily waiving intellectual property rights for COVID technologies. While the waiver received minimal adoption during 2022 it renewed discussions about preserving lifesaving technology accessibility and equitability under the present Intellectual Property framework. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) executes a supporting function by using its Development Agenda which was adopted in 2007. 3 IP regulation under this framework demands members’ states to provide both inclusive and development-focused rules through flexibility measures and access to knowledge and capacity creation programs in developing regions. Forty-five policy recommendations in the Development Agenda focus on technology transfer and public policy coherence while supporting traditional knowledge practices.

The research community advocates for better implementation methods and periodic checks of the WIPO Development Agenda because its current aspirational state prevents substantial change across all domains. India’s domestic IP laws exhibit a better capability to strike a suitable balance between innovation promotion and public health interests when compared to international standards. TRIPS compliance established most of the contemporary shape in India’s legal IP framework which developed independently before the emergence of TRIPS. The bases of India’s IP system is the Patents Act, 1970, which underwent major changes in 2005 to match TRIPS requirements. The use of TRIPS flexibilities by India allows the country to protect public welfare through provisions like Section 3(d) that stops patents on minor product changes (ever greening) while protecting genuine inventions.

The Indian Supreme Court validated this provision throughout its Novartis AG v. Union of India4 case and denied patent protection for a cancer drug update because the drug failed to provide substantial therapeutic gains. The Indian legislation through Section 84 of the Patents Act enables the government to authorize patented product production when specific health emergencies strike without patent holder consent. The government used this authorization during Natco Pharma v. Bayer Corporation. 5 The Indian Patent Office approved compulsory licensing of Bayer Corporation’s life-saving cancer drug at reduced cost improving access for patients. The analysed cases

3 Jeremy de Beer, “Defining WIPO’s Development Agenda” in Jeremy de Beer (ed), Implementing WIPO’s

Development Agenda 25-46 (Wilfred Laurier University Press, 2009)

4 Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 1.

5 Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corporation 2014(60) PTC 277 (BOM)

demonstrate how domestic legal instruments can work for the public advantage despite formal restrictions in international agreements. India actively protects traditional knowledge and biodiversity elements due to their lack of representation in worldwide IPR discussions. India achieved critical bio piracy prevention through the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 together with the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) which maintains systems to distribute fair benefits when native resources are used. 6 The Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) functions as a tool to stop international patent misappropriations because it provides traditional medicinal data in multiple languages.

The implementation of the Geographical Indications (GI) system under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 stands as a proof of India’s dedication to save both cultural traditions and ecological patterns of its local communities. The right to health education and cultural access specified in Article 21 39 and 43 of the Indian Constitution establishes a socio-legal framework to understand IPRs in relation to human development. The Indian judiciary implements a rights-based interpretation of Intellectual Property cases by prioritizing property rights next to public welfare conditions. For example, In the University of Delhi v. Kamal Singh7 case the court underlined the need for free academic resource availability through decisions against limitations that blocked educational progress.

The way Indian courts apply IPR laws demonstrates how the country can enforce these laws in ways that combine social inclusivity with developmental alignment. IPR legal frameworks at both international and domestic levels in India have established surrounded conditions which support innovative practices and sustainable development. The standardized framework provided by international regimes TRIPS and WIPO must develop greater flexibility and equity and access standards during emergency situations. Through its utilization of TRIPS flexibilities and its development of IP laws that respect India’s constitutional mandates the nation presents an effective model which helps developing nations preserve social justice during innovation promotion.

6 Traditional Knowledge Digital Library, available at:

http://www.tkdl.res.in/tkdl/langdefault/common/Abouttkdl.asp (last visited on April 30, 2025).

7 University of Delhi v. Kamal Singh (2016) 235 DLT 290

INNOVATION, IPRs AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS IN THE POST

COVID ERA

The global COVID-19 pandemic revealed healthcare system weaknesses at the same time as making it clear that we require technology accessibility through inclusive innovation strategies. The distinctive nature of these circumstances made Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and innovation fundamental elements for reaching the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Public health (SDG 3), industry and innovation (SDG 9), reduced inequalities (SDG 10) and partnerships for the goals (SDG 17) faced extensive testing under the stress of the global pandemic. Under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development through the United Nations SDGs implement economic growth systems which unite social inclusion and environmental sustainability. 8 IPRs work as fundamental drivers for carrying out the SDGs due to their ability to stimulate innovation which anchors all 17 goals.

IPRs demonstrate the strongest connection to SDG 3 which seeks to achieve “Good Health and Well-being. ” The pandemic made universal access to healthcare products like diagnostic equipment vaccines and treatments extremely difficult for all nations to obtain. IPRs became the subject of worldwide examination regarding their influence on the accessibility of vital products. Several pharmaceutical firms emphasized patents as vital R&D incentives but critics maintained that monopoly powers slowed down and limited cost-effective COVID-19 vaccine distribution for low- and middle-income nations. The TRIPS waiver gained worldwide backing from more than 100 WTO member states and civil society groups as well as international organizations such as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) who maintained IP rights must not hinder life-saving efforts.

9 During the WTO’s 12th Ministerial Conference of June 2022 members agreed to give limited exemptions for COVID-19 vaccines while failing to implement exceptions for COVID diagnostics and treatments. The altered outcome caused a fresh discussion about how the international IP framework balances corporate needs against public health requirements. India revealed its innovativeness by creating vaccines Covaxin and Covishield in parallel to leading the initiative to waive IP regulations. India’s efforts toward “Atmanirbhar Bharat” (self-reliant 8 United Nations, ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ UN Doc A/RES/70/1 (2015) 9 WTO COVID-19 TRIPS Waiver, available at: https://msfaccess. org/wto-covid-19-trips-waiver (last visited on April 30, 2025)

India) combined with proof that development nations can unite public health needs with technological development. The legal framework and institutional support for innovation protection falls directly under the SDG 9 goal “Industry Innovation and Infrastructure. ” Many countries use post-COVID recovery plans to construct sustainable innovation systems that target health tech and edtech as well as renewable energy development. India took the 40th position among 132 economies while ranking as the top country in its income group and geographic area in the Global Innovation Index (GII) 2023 assessment. 10 Recent patent filings together with startup activity growth and research and development policy support have led India to advance in innovation rankings.

Initiatives such as Startup India, Digital India, and the National Innovation Foundation illustrate India’s commitment to creating an enabling ecosystem for innovation. The local programs work hand in hand with both TRIPS and WIPO regulations to establish localized innovation processes that serve the people while fulfilling international requirements. The mutual ground between IPRs and SDGs exists in the connection to SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities. Innovation availability needs to remain a basic right that belongs to everybody equally. Since the pandemic’s end the world has noted rising economic gaps between countries regarding their capacity to access technological resources and digital instruments as well as obtain vaccines. When strictly enforced IPRs tend to worsen existing inequalities because they block cost-effective access to vital products.

Kinder and inclusive IPR designs provide tools to boost marginalized society empowerment simultaneously protecting traditional wisdom alongside enabling locally driven solutions for area-specific needs. India uses Geographical Indications (GIs) together with traditional medicine systems such as Ayurveda and communityowned innovations to make IPRs serve both commercial functions and social justice and cultural preservation goals. 11 The pandemic emphasized open science collaboration in research which supported the principles found in SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals. Open COVID Pledge and the COVAX Facility and Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) facilitated mandatory patent sharing to speed up innovative discoveries and their distribution.

By joining international technology-sharing arrangements and distributing vaccines through “Vaccine Maitri” India intensified its soft 10 WIPO, The Global Innovation Index 2023: Innovation in the face of uncertainty 40-41 (WIPO, 16th eds, 2023) 11 Arpan Banerjee, ‘The Emerging Indian IP Strategy: Between Compliance and Resistance’ in Ruth L. Okediji (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Intellectual Property Law 225-230 (Oxford University Press, 2018)

power capabilities and illustrated how smart IPR management promotes global solidarity above protectionist policies. Legally these new approaches disrupt how courts understand IPRs as being completely autonomous rights. Through multiple judicial decisions the Indian judiciary and legislature make it clear that Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) need to adjust with regard to larger public needs. In Rameshwari Photocopy Services Case the Delhi High Court decided to support the reasonable use of academic material without commercial intent because it believes that copyright laws should not stand in the way of educational opportunities which form part of SDG 4. 12 Lawyers who examine legal cases in India embrace a transformative approach that uses interpretation techniques to bring social change.

The combination of innovation and SDGs has created social empowerment for grassroots movements using community-driven technologies. The rural innovator community finds support through organizations Honey Bee Network and Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions (SRISTI) which highlight thousands of unrecognized ideas in formal IPR systems. 13 These networks enable affordable environmentally friendly innovations which meet specific need thus they fulfil the requirements of SDGs 1, 7 and 13 respectively. These models favour a context-specific approach to IP protection through which native knowledge systems along with community innovations maintain equal importance compared to industrial inventions. A revision of IP-innovation-SDG relationships becomes essential to meet the current post-

COVID paradigm. The role of IPRs needs complete evaluation regarding their impact on social fairness and accessibility and sustainability results despite their on-going power to stimulate innovation. India’s proactive method combining international flexibility with community initiatives and developmental alignment provides other countries with useful principles to navigate between intellectual property protections and sustainable development.

SOCIO-LEGAL CHALLENGES AND CRITIQUES OF THE CURRENT IPR SYSTEM

IN LIGHT OF SDGs AND COVID-19 12 The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services (2016)

235 DLT 409

13 Anil K. Gupta, “Grassroots Innovation: Minds on the Margin are not Marginal Minds” 54-58 (Penguin Random House India, 2016)

IPRs, innovation and Sustainable Development Goals create numerous complex and conflicting relationships in their interaction. Frequently recognized to spur innovation in medical fields and biotechnology, IPRs receive criticism from experts about their role in creating international economic disparities. The magnitude of contradictions in IPR regimes intensified throughout the COVID-19 pandemic which led authorities to reassess these rights’ effectiveness for sustainable development. The main legal obstacle stems from the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement that shows limited flexibility to pharmaceutical multinationals seeking patent protection. The Public Health flexibilities mentioned in Articles 7 and 8 of TRIPS recognize the need for balancing rights with obligations but their practical implementations have varied substantially worldwide.

Through the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health (2001) WTO members received confirmation that they have the right to implement TRIPS flexibilities including compulsory licensing and parallel imports to help public health needs. The implementation of compulsory licensing procedures in practice remains limited because nations encounter institutional as well as political and diplomatic obstacles. 14 India stands as a major exception when it comes to this issue. The case of Natco Pharma v. Bayer Corporation15 acted is a landmark decision for developing nations because India granted its first compulsory license for the anti-cancer drug Nexavar to protect public health while rejecting patent monopoly privileges. The court ruling protected both Section 84 public interest provisions in the Patents Act 1970 and created procedures to link innovation support with community welfare.

The establishment of new provisions including exceptions to patent rights faces resistance from pharmaceutical organizations as well as trade provisions under BITs which demonstrates an existing international disparity in discussing IPR rules. On the social front, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed glaring inequalities in access to lifesaving technologies and innovations. Many areas in the Global South fought without adequate access to vaccines together with diagnostic technologies and ventilators which had patents securing their purchase by Global North countries. The People’s Vaccine Alliance reported that high-income countries distributed more than 80% of global vaccines during the end of 2021 14 Ellen ‘t Hoen et al.

, ‘Medicine Procurement and the Use of Flexibilities in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 2001–2016’ (2018) 96 Bulletin of the World Health Organization 185-

193 (2018)

15 Supra note 5.

but low-income countries reached only 2% coverage. 16 The unequal distribution of life-saving materials during the pandemic existed because the global intellectual property system chose private ownership instead of social rights above all else. The current IP regulatory systems uphold Western methodologies above all other traditional forms of innovation which have been left out of this framework. Domestic IP laws in India along with the global TRIPS framework have traditionally preferred Western standards that define novelty and inventive steps through technological advancements for patent protection purposes. The current IP criteria reject traditional knowledge systems (TKS) along with ecological practices and community innovations because these do not follow conventional standards for intellectual property.

Traditional knowledge about Margosa and turmeric medicinal properties which Indians practiced for years fell victim to unauthorized patent applications in European and US territories prompting a wave of protests and legal action. 17 India passed the Biological Diversity Act of 2002 alongside establishing the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) to combat bio piracy and defend community ownership of intellectual property. The global IP system remains deficient in holding effective mechanisms that can authorize and reward indigenous knowledge traditions. Indian grassroots innovators encounter difficulties gaining support from legal systems under the Biological Diversity Act because national benefit-sharing measures face inconsistent enforcement and these innovators have limited access to legal representation as well as patenting resources.

The current situation creates essential legal and social problems regarding inclusion and justice along with accessibility in the entire innovation framework. The extension of IPRs into education along with environmental protection and agricultural realms has drawn criticism since these sectors directly support SDGs 2, 4 and 13 respectively. The protection of seeds through plant variety rights has encountered worldwide resistance because it leads to privatization in seed industries and the copyright monopolization of learning resources has prompted similar resistance globally. The PPVFR Act of 2001 protects plant varieties by allowing farmers to save seeds while utilizing and trading them according to their rights instead of breaching intellectual property regulations.

Indian lawmakers implemented People’s Vaccine Alliance, ‘Vaccine Inequality Report’ (2022), available at: https://peoplesvaccine. org/resources/reports/vaccine-inequality-report/ (last visited on May 1, 2025).

17 Vandana Shiva, Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge 72-78 (South End Press, 2016).

this legislation because it respects the agricultural context of the country and embraces an inclusive approach to innovation. 18 Climate goals become harder to achieve because of patent restrictions that commodify environmental technologies to excessive extents. Rising technology expenses make essential green innovation for clean energy development and waste disposal and carbon removal inaccessible to nations that are developing. International agreements such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement objectively seek technology transfer along with capacity-building statements yet these goals persist without solution because of tight IP protections.

19 Experts state that today’s IP governance system stands in opposition to sustainable planet management thus necessitating a new approach involving open-source innovation practices alongside collaborative licensing systems. 20 The innovation ecosystem faces critical social-level and legal-level problems because women and diverse groups remain underrepresented in all parts of its structure. Majority groups such as women from disadvantaged backgrounds show low participation rates in patent ownership together with scientific and technological fields and business network access. Research by UN Women Report (2022) showed that worldwide women number under 16 percent among patent seekers while gender-related barriers block their entry into funding and mentorship programs as well as intellectual property training.

An innovation system lacking gender equity cannot achieve sustainable goals SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) due to the existence of gendered imbalances. The end of the COVID pandemic creates an essential opportunity to evaluate both the original principles supporting IP law and its compatibility with sustainable growth. The described socio-legal issues require more than law adjustments because they call for innovation reforms that move away from contemporary intellectual property systems based on exclusive rights and profits toward open and equitable knowledge models that prioritize sustainable development. 18 Yogesh Pai, “Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions: Five Years after the Adoption of the UNDRIP” 3 The WIPO Journal 121-130 (2013).

19 Keith Aoki, “Seed Wars: Controversies and Cases on Plant Genetic Resources and Intellectual Property” 152-

160 (Carolina Academic Press, 2008)

20 Matthew Rimmer, “Intellectual Property and Climate Change: Inventing Clean Technologies” 87-92 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018)

WAY FORWARD: RECONCILING INNOVATION, IPRs AND SDGs IN A POST

PANDEMIC FUTURE

The global community follows the COVID-19 pandemic with a unique chance to develop new concepts that combine innovation with intellectual property and sustainability into agreeable frameworks for human welfare and planetary conservation. Excessive intellectual property protections created for corporate gain demonstrated during the crisis that such mechanisms actually hindered the ability to advance SDG goals associated with health together with education and food security and climate action objectives. The ideal forward-looking sociolegal reform strategy should implement democratic innovation reforms that protect creative incentives and financial investment. Internationally there is an immediate requirement to renegotiate or reinterpret the TRIPS Agreement so developing countries can effectively use available flexibilities.

India along with South Africa took a decisive step toward reform by proposing the TRIPS Waiver for COVID-

19 during 2020.21 The COVID-19 TRIPS Waiver proposal illuminated developing nations’

support for fair IPR solutions during crises despite its finally becoming less effective and slower to implement. SDG-aligned indicators need to be incorporated into WTO and WIPO measures to evaluate IP while differential treatment should be provided to crucial technologies such as vaccines together with green energy tools and digital education platforms. 22 Public entities should work to establish different innovation frameworks which reach past proprietary control systems. Public-private partnerships and patent pools and open-source innovation along with voluntary licensing need greater support because they help advance fields directly linked to SDG implementation. The shared IP arrangements like Medicines Patent Pool and COVAX show how common royalties accelerate access to critical items without diminishing innovative processes.

23 The government should link funding to openaccess requirements and establish platforms for social-driven collaborative R&D projects that disregard commercial profit goals.

21 WTO, “Waiver from Certain Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the Prevention, Containment and

Treatment of COVID-19- Communication from India and South Africa” IP/C/W/669 (2 October 2020).

22 James Boyle, Open Source Innovation, Patent Injunctions, and the Public Interest, 11 Duke Law &

Technology Review 30-64 (2012)

23 Medicines Patent Pool, “Annual Report 2022” (2022), available at:

https://medicinespatentpool.org/downloads/annual-report-2022/ (last visited on April 28, 2025).

India needs to improve its national innovation policy framework because it fails to match the demands of social issues across the country. The technological progress-enabling programs including Startup India, Digital India as well as National Innovation Foundation (NIF) benefit predominantly urban-based male entrepreneurs from elite backgrounds. In order to support the SDGs innovation policy must develop through community-based approaches and require localized implementation and gender-relevant design. Professor Anil Gupta leads India’s Grassroots Innovation Movement which NIF supports through recognizing the inventiveness of people from rural areas and tribes without educational degrees or IP expertise. The development of IP literacy programs and financial assistance for patent applications alongside technology transfer methods demands capacity building support.

Educational institutions specializing in law and technology must create syllabi which combine IP instruction with subjects focusing on ethical values and sustainable practices and justice principles. The Draft National IPR Policy (2016) considers awareness generation essential yet its deployment requires decentralized operations and multilingual approaches and inclusion of all communities for successful empowerment of marginalized groups. 24 India requires legal alterations that will enhance its pro-public clauses within its Intellectual Property framework. The Section 3(d) provision of Indian Patents Act must remain untouched despite international trade agreements placing outside pressure on it. National authorities should enhance enforcement of the PPVFR Act while also developing digital tools and community programs for improved benefits sharing under the Biological Diversity Act.

25 The collaboration of India’s TRAI DST and CSIR should establish novel innovation indicators for assessing social influence and ecological stability and inclusive practices alongside patent statistics and gross domestic product data as innovation standards. The judiciary plays an essential part in interpreting IP laws by using constitutional rights enforced through Article 21 regarding the right to life and Article 39 concerning equitable distribution of resources and environmental jurisprudence. 26 Courts need to protect both public 24 Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, “National IPR Policy” (Government of India, 2016), available at: https://dpiit. gov. in/policies-rules-and-acts/policies/national-ipr-policy (last visited on May 1, 2025). 25 Jeremy de Beer et al.

, “Innovation and Intellectual Property: Collaborative Dynamics in Africa” 176-182 (UCT Press, 2014) 26 Anil K. Gupta, “How the Innovation Agenda in India is Transforming” 5 Journal of Innovation Studies 95-105 (2018)

welfare and individual rights and they should use global human rights treaties as well as sustainable development goals with current expectations of corporate social responsibility. The solution requires IPR transformation from methods that block access to tools that support societal advancement. Advanced innovation systems need to support existing societal agreements and assist with ecosystem conservation particularly during the COVID recovery period which exposes new levels of inequality.

CONCLUSION

The relationship between Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), IPRs and innovation constitutes a rapidly evolving yet fiercely disputed boundary within current socio-legal discussions. During the COVID-19 pandemic the normal ways people control and access knowledge became disrupted while the world faced a collective examination of our current intellectual property system. Life-saving technologies and essential knowledge faced commercialization trends during the COVID-19 pandemic which ultimately decreased worldwide equity while harming sustainability. The global fight for TRIPS reform alongside multilateralism support and open innovation promotion has reached its peak importance. A national initiative in India must utilize constitutional values together with indigenous systems and grassroots innovations to develop inclusive innovation frameworks that follow SDG guidelines.

The research shows IPRs serve innovation needs yet essential ethical standards of access, equity and sustainability should not be compromised because of intellectual property rights. The societal justice-oriented approach requires government officials to pass reform-based laws while working with volunteers and activists to shape policies and judiciary to actively enforce these changes. The current pandemic serves as a transformative period to rebuild IPR systems which combine legal strength with social equity and environmental sustainability. Moving ahead we need to follow the “Innovation for All” principle which protects ideas but also shares them and transforms ownership into everyday life practice and commercial success into human advancement.